User talk:Piotrus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:03, 5 April 2007

File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png You have the right to stay informed. Exercise it by reading the Wikipedia Signpost today.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Piotrus/Archive 15. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

Please add new comments in new sections if you are addressing a new issue. Please sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Thanks in advance.

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

african poles

Could someone please tell me how much of the polish population is from "African" decent?

Wikipedia:Attribution

There has been an extensive effort to combine Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research (together with much of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) into a new policy called Wikipedia:Attribution, and its FAQ, WP:ATTFAQ.

Recently, on Wikipedia talk:Attribution and on the Wiki-EN-l mailing list, Jimbo questioned whether the result had adequate consensus, and requested:

"a broad community discussion on this issue", (now taking place at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion), followed by
"a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results." (now being drafted at Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll)

You are invited to take part; the community discussion should be as broad as possible. If you wish to invite other experienced and intelligent editors, please use neutral language. This message, for example, is {{ATTCD}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the antidemocratic from the text

Hard to believe.Xx236 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Hey, I was going to weigh in on the article Kraków pogrom, and wanted to hear what you felt the major disagreement was. I think I know, but it would help me understand the breadth of the situation if you tell me yourself. You can respond on my Talk Page, where I've set up a section heading specifically for this. Arcayne 19:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names to correct

Hi there, Piotrus! I corrected the names and removed Russian patronimics (they don't really use them in Wikipedia). I also corrected their ranks (colonel general instead of general colonel etc.). Happy editing! KNewman 19:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Northern Group of Forces.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Northern Group of Forces.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Group of Forces

WikiThanks

Thanks for creating Northern Group of Forces. This was fast! -- Petri Krohn 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biało-czarne

III Rzesza budowała autostrady a ZSRR był postępowy. Stanowczo nie należy ich krytykować.Xx236 06:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book links

They hardly ever come up for me, Piotrus. Sandford does. Even some of the Google Book links you quote in discussions don't usually come up for me, which is frustrating. I have a feeling these links are volatile from user to user. We can link the books themselves, if you like; but I suspect that trying to link the pages is futile. It's misleading to link the reader to a page when if he clicks the link he doesn't get the page, only the cover page. We could link to the cover pages in the references section. qp10qp 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will put them back in because it is your article (give me a day or two). But I feel that they are unprofessional and will store up nothing but potential link rot for the future. (I even sometimes find that I can't get some of my own search results back a few minutes later; so I am learning that if I do find a page, I must make notes from it immediately. It is the same with the poppies in my garden: if I don't sniff them straight away, it may be too late.) qp10qp 17:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put them back. But I didn't find many (I compared two old versions of the page with the current one). Let me know if I've missed some. The Martin Dean and James Dunnigan ones don't bring a page up for me, just the book cover. (The notes are all a bit untidy and inconsistent at the moment. If we ever go for FA, we'll need to think up a stylish and consistent way of presenting all the refs, links, notes etc. But we might as well leave that till last. qp10qp 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curbing the pushers of the "friendly" POV

Piotrus, I know that you repeatedly refused to reign down on the POV-pushers if the POV they were pushing seemed "right" to you no matter what behavior they expressed. Molobo, Ksenon/Litwa, LUCPOL or Mathiasrex who you even instructed on how to file a 3RR report on myself.

But I really have no choice but to ask you again, now in connection with LUCPOL. As we speak he repeatedly removed my well explained tag from the NGF article without discussion and without adding a single entry to a talk page. I request that you take him to the woodshed about disruption and restore the tag on your own until our discussion is finished as I expect the fellow to be looking forward for an opportunity to accuse me in 3RR. He may even be the same fellow as Mathiasrex. --Irpen 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, please face it: people disagree. Sometimes, they even disagree with you. In that case, you may be in minority, and your edits will be reverted. We all have to live with it. I have tried to address your concerns raised at Talk:Northern Group of Forces, but really, your constant objections to expanding and featuring any articles which show less than perfect part of the Soviet/Russian states are quite discouraging. Please note I didn't plan on expanding the NGA article with details on those issues, but as the saying go: if you push... expect something to return.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, this is not about people disagreeing. It is about acting reasonably or not. My objection are well explained and out of nowhere appears this friend of yours who reverts me without adding anything to the discussion. And, as always, you refused to curb on the friendly troll and use him instead as battering ram. I tried to appeal to your consciousness once again. Guess, I made a mistake. The rest of your accusations are not new and I will not dignify them with a response just to repeat what was said earlier. --Irpen 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I find your actions - tagging articles you dislike with POV tags, arguing they should not be featured on DYKs, GAs, FAs, etc. - all without providing any references - much more problematic. Any editor has the right to disagree with you, and calling them 'trolls' only reflects your belief in your own infallability. Again, I invite you to present references supporting your POV if you want to claim an article is not NPOV. I have replied to you on talk of that article, and I believe I addressed all of your concerns.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you did not but I am now banned from correcting it thanks to the fierce reverting campaign run by you and your friend who mysteriously appeared out of nowhere just to revert me without a single entry at the talk page. Your refusal to intervene is telling enough.

Now, I already explained to you that sources and neutrality while related is not an identical concept. Tendentious presentation, no matter how sourced, remains tendentious. The example of Legnica issue perfectly fits the pattern of Russian Enlightenment when the lengthy piece on the issue that belongs elsewhere is pasted into the article to give some POV an undue weight. I leave this article in disgust, note your siding with the friendly troll and wish you luck. But under this circumstances the article cannot be featured at the main page and I will reiterate this again. I expect your accusations that I try to derail anything that does not fit my POV. This is inline with the bizarre statement by your friend whose behavior is being scrutinized by an ArbCom, the statement which I understood, despite your refusal to translate it. I will not even dignify this outrageous accusations with the response. You can claim all you want. --Irpen 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot claim that the article is POVed without presenting sources to back you up. Please read WP:NPOV: what you are doing is using your own personal opinion, which is nothing but the most extreme case of 'undue weight'.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just pretend to not understand that WP:RS and WP:NPOV are different policies and they address different issues. Sigh. I've heard it already. --Irpen 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Irpen, I understand completly that you are not a reliable source. EOT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another straw man argument. No wikipedian can claim to be a reliable source. I never claimed otherwise. --Irpen 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just claim that certain articles are POVed and fail to give any sources. But of course since you are representing some 'great universal truth', you are neither presenting your own POV nor need to cite any sources. How could I have failed to recognize that... not. If you have nothing reasonable to say, please just go away. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about sources. I do not question facts, I question the presentation and I explained at talk why so. I tried to make some edits without deleting a single fact or source, just correcting the mistakes and rounding the angles were the undue weight was given to the facts of relative lesser importance (Russian Enlightenment syndrome displayed here in Legnica issue.)

Based on the same set of sources the article may be written neutrally and may be written to air some nationalist grievances brought up to satisfy one's agenda at wikipedia. Trying to reason with you at your talk when I see the problem was a mistake which I was making repeatedly. Trying to bring to your attention the disrputive behavior of your compatriot was also a mistake since I have tried that before (WRT to Molobo, Ksenon's socks, Mathiasrex, and now Lucpol) was also an exercise of futility. I should have known that too. Anyway, since you are now telling me to leave your talk page alone I will do that per your request. I should have known better from dealing with you in the past. --Irpen 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am only learning from the best, Irpen.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, that you should have known better is quite an understatement. Dr. Dan 03:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that P.P. (aka Prokonsul Piotrus) would not ban me (as he threatens several times already) if I write about this situation. The same situation regarding usage of user: LUCPOL’s “services” I meet at Ponary massacre. Firstly Piotrus tried his best to remove referenced facts about Polish Jew killers with shocking edit summary , such behavior was denounced by other contributor [1] . And now then P.P. is alone with his POV and removal of facts, suddenly out of nowhere user: LUCPOL jumps in and restores “proper” version of article by removing referenced facts and tags presented by different contributors with with edit summary - this is OK . Feel the power? And literally LUCPOL did not add a single entry to a talk page why removal of facts is “OK”. He also did not add a single entry to the article before nor related articles. But just looking into LUCPOL contributions such behavior is not isolated, exact same happened and in other places. I find disturbing that contributor who allegedly can’t present his view and defensive speech to his ArbCom case [2] due to poor command of English (as Piotrus notes), but can easily remove facts and distort articles. Another interesting development, as P.P. notes LUCPOL has bad command of English (btw, did he/she understand articles in which he/she intervenes?), translation of LUCPOL’s thoughts to ArbCom and RFI was made also by Piotrus . So that do we have – same “contribution” scheme – when Piotrus intervenes in content dispute and needs "support" LUCPOL, who enjoyed Piotrus’ help in his ArbCom and RFI cases, jumps in out of nowhere and restores "proper" article version supported by Piotrus, without any further involvement in articles . Probably we will see more such developments in the coming future. M.K. 09:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On March 30, 2007, a fact from the article Battle of Jarosław, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for all your work Piotrus! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romania and the Warsaw pact

Thanks for the link. Dpotop 06:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Regarding your phrase at my talk page, I don't know that phrase but I guess I get that. Regarding your request of Milovice geo-stub, there are three municipalities in the Czech Republic called Milovice. Two of them are villages, one is a town. Which one do you meant? - Darwinek 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 30 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Józef Zając, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Hello Piotrus, you prodded Polish National Top 50, but one user and some IPs insist on keeping it by removing the template. I don't see any substantial improvements being made to that article. I've tried to engage the user in conversation, to no avail. What does one do in this situation? Appleseed (Talk) 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XIII - March 2007

Project news

The project's scope has been updated to include depictions of military history in cultural media.
The Spanish military history task force has been created.
The project now has a publication department, which will work on producing collections of military history articles for offline publication.
There is now a list of military-related deletion nominations available.
Two new sets of guidelines have been introduced:
- Guidelines for classifying military conflicts and categorizing campaigns
- Expanded guidelines for citation styles and requesting citations
Two new templates are now available:
- {{Infobox National Military}}, a primary infobox for use on articles about an entire nation's military establishment.
- {{Service record}}, an auxiliary infobox for documenting a military unit's or ship's service history.
The old requested articles page and the automation department have been discontinued.

Current proposals and discussions

The new project award structure is nearing completion; a draft currently is up for comment.
A proposal for replacing the project's collaboration with a contest scheme is being discussed.
Sign-ups for several potential task forces are open; all interested members are encouraged to list themselves!
An automated system for locating new articles is currently being tested.

To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Northern Group of Forces

On 30 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northern Group of Forces, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not stalking

Just to tell you in advance I was not stalking you. I accidentally run into this article when I came to 172's talk to tell him about a different one. Just letting you know 'cause I am getting used to ABF from your end. --Irpen 02:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I would never use that edit to assume you are stalking me; it is obviously an AGF argument and as such, appreciated.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was prompted by DYK and DYK only. Again, not stalking. Thought I better explain. --Irpen 04:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, did I ever accuse you of stalking?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did and exactly under the similar circumstances, when I showed up at the page after your edit. What was especially disconcerting was that you could not have not known that the particular page was on my watchlist. Should I dig the diff? --Irpen 15:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. --Irpen 18:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that. Well, if you stop accusing me of canvassing whenever I report a Poland-related discussion on Poland-related board, I will have no reason to think that you stalk me...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that I did stalk you, aren't you? What should I take? This or your "did I ever accused you of stalking" rhetorical question just two entries above? --Irpen 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. Did I ever groundlessly accused you of stalking? And no, you don't have to reply, I see no point in pursuing this thread which has no destiny other than degenerate into more flaming. Please, in the future, you don't need to post on my talk with explanations of your actions until I question them.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for welcoming me. I was active last November, but using my IP. This time I decided to get an account. I'll check out the noticeboard and see if I can help with anything. I'm not 100% Polish, but of Polish descent (3/4ths). - Britlawyer 20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand. Now you are getting the orange. I will familiarize myself somewhat before continuing and making a mess of things. I thought I had learned a few tricks in November, but I need to brush up on it, especially now that I have an account. Britlawyer 20:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Jews in Poland

Certainly I'm planning to contribute to that article, but at the moment I need to finish Krakow pogrom article, which tends to consume huge amount of time so far. I've also started a copy edit of Żydokomuna, which also remains unfinished. M0RD00R 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Armed Forces in the West

This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

--For heaven's sake, Piotrus!! ;)Camptown 13:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obrazki Brynowa na Commons

Witam, jestes moze z Brynowa? Widzialem Twoje zdjecia na Commons. Pytam tylko z czystej ciekawosci :) Necrokris 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, ze nie jestem sam z Bryonwa na Wiki :D Jeszcze jedno pytanko. Nie wiesz gdzie na en.wiki sa prosby o zmiane nazwy usera? Pzdr, Necrokris 23:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thankyou Piotrus for this medal. This is a great honour, coming from one of most prolific DYK contributors ever, and one of the most prolific article writers ever. You are one of those who deserve it much more than myself. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

I've noticed that you are active in the BattleTech articles here at Wikipedia. I've started a proposal for a Battletech Wikiproject. If you are interested please check out my proposal at the Battletech main article's talk page. Thanks alot. NeoFreak 05:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass AFD Nomination

Just through I'd give you a heads up, you have to put the AFD template on each of the pages, not your simple text without even a link to the AFD discussion. It may lead to the discussion being closed, and I don't think it was a good idea to proceed that route anyway. Mister.Manticore 06:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't suggest nominating all of them at once. That would likely be a bad idea. My advice is to try The Village Pump to get people's consensus on what to do, or to look for a few of the worst offenders in the category, nominate them, and see what the consensus is. Or both, there's no reason you couldn't try it either way. Mister.Manticore 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, PROD is one option, but in this case, I don't recommend it without more discussion. Not exactly much attention was paid to it. Mister.Manticore 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

framing merge proposal

Please see Talk:Framing (sociology). - Grumpyyoungman01 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gerdorff pp.

After creating my first article on Wiki (Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff), I had no choice but recognizing your extraordinary contributes to this encyclopaedia. I hereby would like to draw your intention to my second try: Red Army atrocities (WWII). Probably you can give me some more information concerning Poland in this matter. Sincerely yours --Dionysos 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update request

Hoi: I'm very fond of your User:Piotrus/Wikipedia interwiki and specialized knowledge test; it's very interesting and a good antidote to subjective appraisals of Wikipedia's incompleteness. Anyway, recently on WikiEn-l, it has been proposed (and supported!) that article creation in general just be disabled for a while. The idea apparently is that biography articles are too troublesome and that Wikipedia is relatively complete anyway. I'd like to cite your essay in any such future discussions, but I'd be happier if it was brought up to date - besides, en and the other Wikipedias have grown and changed a lot since then! I don't know whether you have the spare time or want to do it at all, but if you did, I'd appreciate it. --Gwern (contribs) 04:45 4 April 2007 (GMT)

That's quite cool; I wish I could somehow fold all the time I spend on Wikipedia into a thesis! I don't mind waiting.

But as far as I can tell, it's an utterly serious proposal, and appeared well before April 1st; see Snowspinner's initial email. --Gwern (contribs) 05:24 4 April 2007 (GMT)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Template:Location map Poland

Witaj. Powiem bez ogródek - jest już ten szablon na en.wiki. Zobacz hasło Warsaw - tam już działa. Co z resztą miast - te infoboxy jakieś takie nieporadne. --Hiuppo 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felices Pascuas/ Happy Easter/ Wesołego Alleluja!

Dear friend:

This is just a wish of happiness in this Easter from myself. (The Easter Egg is a kindly gift from Tomek)

Regards

--Gustavo 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Vilnius Operation April 1919 Przybylski.JPG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Imperial Castle in Poznań

I've got informations, by no enough abilities in using English language :) Radomil talk 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Talk:Operation Wilno

Out of curiosity, why did you change your mind? And here I was happy for 12 minutes that one problem has ended :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind after reading more of that "Discussion" and "Alternative name" sections. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet infantry doctrine

Write an article? I suppose I could do that, but keeping it encyclopedic would be very time consuming and time is just something I do not have. I would be glad to contribute to such an article, if one is started, but I don't think I could make one from scratch. At least, not right now. Should I get the time, I think I would like to do that. MVMosin 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 361: / Line 361: @@
 :I changed my mind after reading more of that "Discussion" and "Alternative name" sections. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
+== Soviet infantry doctrine ==
+Write an article? I suppose I could do that, but keeping it encyclopedic  would be very time consuming and time is just something I do not have. I would be glad to contribute to such an article, if one is started, but I don't think I could make one from scratch. At least, not right now. Should I get the time, I think I would like to do that. [[User:MVMosin|MVMosin]] 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)